| Mills v Rodgers | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 13, 1982 Decided June 18, 1982 | |
| Full case name | MILLS ET AL. v. ROGERS ET AL. |
| Docket no. | 80-1417 |
| Citations | 457 U.S. 291 (more) 457 U.S. 291 (U.S. S. Ct.); remanded sub nom., Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1; certifying questions to sub nom., Rogers v. Commissioner of Department of Mental Health, 458 N.E.2d 308 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Reargument | Reargument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | remanded Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979) remanded Rogers v. Okin, 634 F.2d 650, 662 n. 12 (1st Cir. 1980) |
| Holding | |
| Do mentally-ill patients have the right to refuse treatment administered upon them by medical staff. It also argued the right of thought and the capability of the patient to make reasonable decision based on their mental stability | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Powell Jr, joined by unanimous court |
Mills v Rodgers, 457 U.S 291 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the question on if "involuntarily" committed patients in psychiatric facility have the right to refuse anti-psychotic drugs that was administrated by their physician. This case argued the right of thought and the capability of the patient to make reasonable decision based on their mental stability. The case was decided on June 18, 1982, by Burger's Court which was led by Powell Jr who favored for Mills with the backing of a unanimous court. Mills v Rodgers remanded the court of appeals case, Rodgers v Okin, 634 F.2d 650, 662 n. 12 (1st Cir. 1980) and district case Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979).[1]
Contested Law/Rights
[edit]Under the Constitution rights were held in place to protect peoples rights against government and corporations control. Under the Bill of rights 1st amendment was being challenged in the case later known as Mills v Rodgers. The two parties contested over the idea if mentally-ill patients have the right of their opinion being heard and their freedom of speech during the consumption of mandatory regulated medicine. Ideally the idea of are they capable of making their own decision with a history of mental-illness or are they subjected to the administration decision on what's best for them. The case also applied with the 4th amendment and the right to privacy (Continue you are not finished) (This Paragraph needs work)
Prior History
[edit]Original Dispute
[edit]Mental patients in a Boston State Hospital were forcefully drugged with anti-psychotic drugs given upon them by their physician and other staff members. Mental Patients Liberation Front (MPLF) organization protecting such patients filed a class action lawsuit against Boston State Hospital and its staff members. Judi Chamberlin leader of the MPLF organization meets up with the victims and sees their conditions and talks to them about their life in the institution. Many of the mentally-ill patients were put in isolation rooms and medicated against their will. One such victim is Rubie Rodgers, a black 23-year old woman was forced to take consumption of Haldol Decanoate; an anti-psychotic drug used for mental patients with Tourette syndrome. Rodgers and along 6 other patients with the help of Mental Patients Liberation Front filed a class action lawsuit against the May and Austin Unit in Boston State Hospital. They alleged that forcible administration of these drugs violated rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. The case was certified in Massachusetts court leading to the start of the district trial.
District Court Case
[edit]On April 27, 1975, the Patients filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the May and Austin Unit. The seven patients sued a number of staff including the Commonwealth's commissioner of Mental Health, the case would be known as Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979).
The case originally planned a hearing in the fall of 1975 but was pushed back later do to the court involvement on trying to solve such issue in private. Due to irreconcilable differences the two parties had to push the hearing on June 21, 1976. Around this time the Defendants tried to dissolve the temporary restraining order but failed to in the process. The trial occurred on October 29, 1975, and dedicated to the testimony with more than 50 witnesses, most of whom were psychiatrists, psychologists or other professionals. The trial was held under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.
In the conclusion of the case the court's verdict was decided and was in favor of the Defendants finding the physicians treatment not being "extreme and outrages" and the court finds that the defendants have not unreasonably interfered with plaintiffs' privacy rights to justify an award of damages under this tort theory. Based on the evidence submitted, the court determines that plaintiffs have not met their burden on proving that defendants' medication and seclusion practices failed to meet acceptable medical standards. The plaintiffs filed an appeal shortly after.
Appeals Court Case
[edit]
See also
[edit]Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Category:1982 in United States case law Category:Mental health law in the United States Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
- ^ Appelbaum, Paul (1989). Paul Appelbaum on Law and Psychiatry: Collected Articles from Hospital and Community Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association Publishing. p. 30.